About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:31:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel v26

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 15, California 5, Johnson 2, Us 2, Brown 2, Singh 1, John 1, Francis 1, The City 1, Jackson 1, Olson Lee 1, Keith Washington 1, Ellington 1, Mamma Jackson 1, Mr. Devoir 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    October 30, 2013
    3:30 - 4:01pm PDT  

3:30pm
including a car in new development is a new planning code requirement so we make sure that the design team follows that and they have basically followed the requirement by including one. there will probably be more car share throughout the development, maybe partially on the street or in buildings but for now specifically for block 49 we have this one. >> okay. that was my next question. this is about the car share and the bike parking, i think the bike parking is pretty significant. 60 spots for 60 units but just for people who don't live in the building on street, this is a procedural question, i think dpw handles the parking on the street. >> i believe so, but i'm not
3:31pm
certain. >> i'm pretty sure about that. i had that question before. if it were us because the design is part of this project, i would say we need more on street bike parking and we should think about designated car share if there's not a significant amount in the buildings but i think that's an mta thing and i'll take it up with them. okay. so -- that's it. everyone has -- my suggested change to the resolution. are there further questions on the block 49 project? all right. if so i like to -- i like to entertain a motion on the resolution as amended or suggest change. >> i move to approve the schematic design for block 49 with the suggested amendments.
3:32pm
>> i second. >> thank you very much. madam secretary please call the roll. >> please announce your vote when i call your name. >> ellington. >> i. >> mondejar. >> yes. >> singh. >> yes. >> johnson. >> yes. >> the vote is five i. >> thank you very much. madam secretary please call the next item. >> item 5 d authorizing the submission to the california department of finance of a request for a final and conclusive determination that senate bill no. 2113 20000 established an enforceable obligation regarding the funding and development >> item 5 d authorizing the submission to the california department of finance of a request for a final and conclusive determination that senate bill no. 2113 20000 established an enforceable obligation regarding the funding and development of affordable replacement housing units. discussion and action resolution number 51-2013. >> thank you madam secretary and commissioners. during the redevelopment team, there were housing units that were destroyed across the city and
3:33pm
senate bill 2113 allows us, the former redevelopment agency and now oci to move forward to collect tax increments and fulfill that housing information and that's an informational item related to preference. to both of these items are on your agenda. i like to ask deputy director jim to present this item. >> chair johnson, members of the commissioner, my name is jim, deputy director at the successor agency as director bohe indicated the issue before you is getting the state department of finance to determine that the housing obligation exists for housing that was destroyed before 1976. by a way of background to talk
3:34pm
about how this sits within dissolution law, i wanted to go over the highlights. so we know at this point in the 20th month of dissolution, that enforceable obligations are the key to what is the agenda for successor agencies. we know that the dissolution law, although it requires successor agencies to wind down as quickly as possible allows activities to continue if they further preexisting enforceable obligations. we also know that in designing enforceable obligations and what can be spent for those, the state through the department of finance has primarily through the rock which you review every six months and submitted to the department of finance. under dissolution law dof has suggest
3:35pm
discretion to reject the expenditures in the rock and challenge the existence of the obligations. enforceable obligations are broadly defined to design contract agreements and among other things obligations imposed by state law. so because of the relative uncertainty that we have about enforceable obligation because dof can review them, there was a procedure placed in the clean up legislation to the original dissolution law, that's ab 1484 adopted in june. provided for the first time the agencies could request or petition the
3:36pm
state department of finance to determine that an enforceable obligation that has appeared on the lot is something that dof won't challenge in the future. if a state determines that and enforceable obligation is conclusive, they're reviewing the future is to determine a particular expenditured is required under that enforceable obligation. under 1484 the procedure for submitting a petition for final conclusion requires two things, it could be that the obligation provides for a commitment of property tax, second that commitment of
3:37pm
property tax occurs over time, and third this is something that the department of finance added, that the enforceable obligation has to be approved before you can submit it for a final determination. the agency has already submitted three final conclusive determine requests and received two. one for transbay and enforceable obligations underline that project. another final conclusive determination was issued for the shipyard point both phase 1 and phase 2 and we currently have pending on mission bay north and south final conclusive determination. these were all submitted before the formation of this commission and were submitted directly by the staff, but the executive director to the
3:38pm
department of finance and as i have indicated here have already approved two out of the three. this would be the first conclusive determination that we have presented to you for your consideration and let me describe the scope of this obligation and some of is historic background. starting in the late 1990s the former redevelopment agency was aware as most redevelopment agencies were aware that many of the older redevelopment plans were going to expire. because of the way these older plants have been established and the statute governing them, a lot of them were going to expire around 2009. more significantly the ability to issue debt was going to expire
3:39pm
around 2004. this prompted many redevelopment agencies to look at state fixes to try to extend the life of redevelopment. in san francisco the focus was on trying to extend these older redevelopment plans to provide funding for affordable housing. there was a lot of controversy about this in san francisco and throughout the state because a lot of the people didn't want to give any extension the authority to development agencies. we in san francisco had tried to limit the scope of the extension to provide funding for affordable housing. we worked with senator john's office to further limit and design what the nature of the obligation was for san francisco. the result was special legislation that only affected san francisco and
3:40pm
provided an extension of redevelopment adopted prior to 1994 allowing those plans to be extended in order to replace or provide funding for housing, affording housing that can had been destroyed during urban renewal days. the estimate at the time going into the legislative session was approximately 7,000 units that needed to be replaced. the scope of 2113 is now that it provides a time extension of the agencies ability to incur debited and it was enact in
3:41pm
2000, the city of san francisco was granted to incur debt to fund affordable housing that would replace the destroyed housing until january 1, 2014. the city and the agency were also granted the authority to receive tax increment to repay that debt until 2044. so the bill 2113 provided a number of findings that are important to us even today in establishing this obligation. the legislature found that although san francisco was unique in that it had a very aggressive affordable housing program that it still suffered from the lack of affordable housing because so many units had been
3:42pm
destroyed and not replaced, and it found that the continuing housing crisis and this was in 2000, the continuing housing crisis in san francisco was compounded by the loss of affordable units that were never replaced. you can take a look at those findings that were made in 2000 and apply them to this time in san francisco where the housing crisis is even worse. another significant thing about s p2113 when it was adopted and the reason it received the support of the legislature and the govern governor at the time was that it provided funding of the schools for the redevelopment plans and you may recall from discussion and the
3:43pm
reasons that governor brown did this was to reserve funding for school because when the plans expire and the property tax will be restored -- under 2113 the legislature made clear that the schools would receive their full share of the tax increment before we could use the tax increment for affordable housing. this led to the finding both in the legislature and in some of the legislature history that s p2113 wasn't going to have an impact on state and its funding of schools and that's a significant factor here today. also at is core, 2113 adopted the replacing housing obligations that were first a
3:44pm
domented in 1976 and continued through dissolution. where ever an agency destroyed a housing unit that was occupied by lower income household the agency was required to create a plan and it was required to develop units that one for one replacement with an equal number of bedroom as those who had been destroyed. the agency also had a four year timeframe to replace those units so the legislature adopted 2113 saying the city of san francisco and is redevelopment agency want to apply the then current obligation for replacing housing to those units that were destroyed before the obligation was in place and raise indicated that obligation was first adopted in 1976 and prior to that time the san
3:45pm
francisco redevelopment agency destroyed 7,000 units. the statute itself was not self executing. it requires a number of debts for the agency and the board of supervisors to take and also the state. the first step was for the department of california housing and community development to certify the exact number of units that the agency had destroyed and so in 2002, and 2003, they submitted documented to verify the number of units that had been destroyed in several of the older project areas. h cd found that 7,900 units needed to be replaced and that was part of the 2113 obligation.
3:46pm
the legislation required that the board of supervisors adopt amendments to redevelopment plans acknowledging the replacement housing obligation and extending particular redevelopment plans so that tax increments can continue to flow after the expiration of those plans. some of the first redevelopment plans to be amended by the board of supervisors were the golden gateway, the indian basin and the hunter's point project area, subsequently the south beach redevelopment plan, the western additional a2 and the buena plan were extended to allow for funding for replacement housing. after 2013 was adopted the
3:47pm
legislature expanded all agencies so any unfulfilled housing obligation that was in affect at the time the plan expired had to be fulfilled by the redevelopment plans so anytime limits would fall or be superceded by the requirement that the housing obligations be fulfilled so the agency used 2113 and these later enact stat tory amendments western a to allow for a funding affordable housing for replacement units. after the board adopted those
3:48pm
ordinance, they issued bond under 2113 to provide the funding for the housing that would need to be built and from the period of 2005 through 2011 the agency was able to fund approximately 900 units of housing. many of those have been completed by now, others are still in pre-development structure phase. we need an obligation of 5800 units that still need to be built. so with a dissolution of the redevelopment agency, the successor agency was aware of the importance of obligations in this scheme of continuing our activities and almost from
3:49pm
day one the successor agency asserted in documented submitted to the state that one of its enforceable obligation in addition to the mission bay and the shipyard and transbay was a replacement housing obligation. indeed of april of 2012 the oversight board in one of its first meeting approved the first rock and adopted a resolution that found that the redevelopment agency and successor agency had a housing replacement obligation to the 6800 units that were destroyed and replaces. indeed the broad statement of these enforceable obligations and the number of units and the amount of money it would cost to replace these
3:50pm
units hand about on every rock that has been submitted to the department of finance since this solution. and the department of finance hasn't objected to those broad statements of the enforceable obligation. in addition there had been a couple of specific projects that were listed under these obligations for particular projects that would be funded from 2013. most notable was a parcel loan of the central freeway parcels, former freeway parcels where the housing successor and the successor agency proposed to build approximately 80 units of rental housing that would be replacement housing that would be funded under 2013. this was submitted to the department of
3:51pm
finance in rocks 3. significantly the state requested a review of that particular item along with several others and the agency described in detail the nature of the 2113 obligation and how this parcel project fit within the fulfillment of that obligation. after that, a submission by the successor agency, they approved that item. currently today we have a rock that would seek funding for 2113 for 80 units in the south of market. notablely the state has asked for review of that item and we are going to submit an analysis very similar to the with parcel and how
3:52pm
that's apart of our obligations. so we had fulfilled the requirements for the final conclusive just to recap. the actions of the agency of hcd and certifying the funding and that it constituted property tax given the size of the obligation which we think is going to be $1.5 million and the revenues will be advocated over time. finally we have submitted several rops which this
3:53pm
replacement obligation has an approved by the oversight board and the department of finance. we strongly believe that we have fulfilled all the criteria. i would also know that we are extremely hopeful and confident that the department of finance will approve this if you agree to submit this request you we don't think it's the end of the story because we have time limits in 2014 that may require adjustments. the value of this petition that you have before that it would get the state's acceptance of an enforceable obligation that the agency must replace these units that were destroyed long ago and we can use that not only for immediate funding request by also in the legislative arena to get the
3:54pm
necessary changes to have that funding continue and with that i'll conclude it. >> is there any public comment. >> i have one speaker card. >> let me state very clearly for you, i would call it [inaudible] when it comes to this. you have to have a good stance of history. in this city of san francisco, named after saint francis, we have thousands of japanese, thousands of italians, later thousands of blacks who were impacted in a horrendous
3:55pm
manner. i'm glad that san francisco redevelopment agency is dead. i'm very glad. and i see before me some -- what would i call shadow ghost of the san francisco redevelopment agency trying to comprehend something. you heard a long winded explanation which is people were harmed, people were thrown to the streets, people were harboring their sorrows, middle class families who were grown to poverty and respondent and took up habits like drinking and many of them died, but when they came here from east coast, middle class families came with with an education, they brought a lot but redevelopment saw to it that they destroyed the family. so in shock today you guys to
3:56pm
some legally are calling upon the state of california to create affordable housing so we have tons and tons of market rate housing but we don't have affordable housing and then we have affordable housing, we choose to build them on contaminated sites like the shipyards which are grown to flooding. you can't understand that because you don't read the engineering reports but i can because i've read it and i have experience. the state of california is going along with some legal -- because it's impossible to build thousands and thousands of affordable housing. it's impossible to
3:57pm
built them because of the time restraints and because of the money so what do you do? you a gree to put people who are poor and put them in small blocks and call them affordable housing. i wish you the best. but we as advocates can hold to the fire and start a resolution. thank you very much. >> jackson. in listen, i'm thinking i'm hearing a report that i was in a meeting with olson lee. two weeks ago housing units that's under the hope program and when he talked about tax increment, my ears popped up because that means
3:58pm
tax my community. i'm a property owner and the games, you know, that i have seen here is that everyone that was working with a redevelopment agency was part of the redevelopment agency are not all in the department and they're singing the same tune. the same tune is being sang, and you need to investigate. you need to get documented for yourselves and read for your sexes because when he talked about the 75 -- the housing being destroyed and western division, i like no know where were they? the last time anything was destroyed here in san francisco was when we had the earthquake and i like to know information period because talking and if you believe all the talk that you hear, we're
3:59pm
not going any place because of the fact even building the houses in huntis point, if you buy a house up there, you can't even get insurance because you won't be able to dig in the ground to make flowers or make vegetables because the shipyard is a super site not a brown site. what's his name, who is the boss giving out -- macoin just lied. all the lies that have been told which is a shame and if you believe those lies because i have been here in san francisco since 1943 and i've lived at huntis point since 1948 so i as a teenager, i've
4:00pm
seen everybody in bay huntis point. all field land and everything over in that area so you all need to be very careful on what you're hearing here. >> keith washington. >> ain't no mystery. check the history. what mr. devoir just revealed to you, it clarified and cultures everything, but i hasn't been doing it as long as mamma jackson, but to hear that display on what he said within senate. i went to the senate back in the 2008 and testimony and the next time i come i'm going to